The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-19 00:00:00

jurisprudence. It is a presumption of law that the person of every BriCsh suhject is enti:led ru protec tion from injury, just as it is a maxim of state eco nomy that every practicahle means should be taken to secure generally a virtuous, - healthfol, ;Ind intelligent populpopulation ; and since children might he exposed, ation their helplessness and inexperience; to certain tufferings which adults arc more able to avert or endure, their protection and support has always been cared fur, to some extent, by special statutes made iand provided i.s hu;ic !.:;tl., a parent is unisn ma ahle for ruing of injuring his child ;:1 m aster tie apprentice, and so rm. In the large discretion, however, which is justly allov ,. ed to every parent in the management of his offspring, the law hits not defined either the amount of withheld food that shall con stittitu s'.arvation, or the corporal chastise:mut that fi,hall be consideted an injury. Leaving this to be jildged of by the phenomena ,and evidence pre sented in individual cases of alleged suffering, it so s:aerediyr regards the rights of the helpless as the para mount ol jert of its protection, that it seems studiously to have avoided defining the kind or quantity of puniAment which parents or masters may inflict upon children with impunity ; and for this obvious reason — that as a statotory maxi»zum of chastisement or cruelty might be exercised .upon robust constitutions without much perceptible injury, while the infliction of a mini mzim one upon feeble and sickly frames might in effect be tantommint to murder, so the laws of this realm hail c onsidered that an undefined responSibiiity on the part of parents and masters (the more perilous because undefined) would be sufficient to deter them from seriously injuring the children under their charge. But since it was toned that the introduction of machinery into our manufactures, and the accompanying low . rates of wages, presented to parents with large families and. to masters anxious to hire cheap labour, such a t en rotation to eet mere children to work in mills and factories, as ultimately subjected them, under the prostitute 4 name of industry, to sufferings which, though not Olen cognizable by law, were almust equal to any that c7tlertY or caprice could inflict, an ir resistible appeal was address ed to the Le g islature by the late Mr. Sat:.ler and others on their behalf, which issued in the Act u 4: 1833, whereby all under 13 years of age were restriCied from working more than eight hours a day. Now ev'f , ri this, considering the evidence that was adduced respe,7ting the chronic diseases and habits of gin-drinking contrad.ed by young children, and especially by young females, driven by animal exhaustion to seek relief in pernicious sti , mulants, might well have been deemed too much. But, alas the day I these poor wretched beings are now delivered over to the tender mercies of the poli tical economists ; and, as the cotton-spinners of Man chester,-like the Town Councillors of Edinburgh, pos sess the advantage of having a Member of the Govern ment to get for them whatever they want, they have demanded, with honourable exceptions, that the eight hours' labour shall be increased to 12 ; and thus, if the amended Bill be persevered in, thousands of innocent and unprotected children, with their livid cheeks and varicose veins, will be re-fastened to the car and crushed beneath the wheels of the great manufacturing Mam mon whom all Lancashire worshippeth. This latter subject we shall zealously recur to, in the hone of being able to furnish sufficient grounds to induce the Legis lature to re-consider It might be necessary to apologize for our frequent recurrence to the discussion of Irish affairs, were it not that the House of Commons itself sets the example. It might also be thought useless, were it not that we still find facts maintained about Ireland which are wholly unsupported by any evidence that an impartial man would think worth a straw, and theories promul gated which, if started respecting any other country in the world, would be resisted as false, or scouted as ridiculous. Between party zeal, which on Irish mat ters is so extreme that it will not look on truth at all, and a sort of national habit of exaggeration, which ru ns away with truth to such an altitude that it can hardly be seen, we are still left in a sort of mist which discussion does not dissipate ; and the same subjects arc again and again recurred to, to be again wrangled, and again left in " palpable obscure." These observa tions are, we think, strongly illustrated and borne out by the discussion on Tuesday night in the House of Commons, upon the conduct of Irish landlords and Irish priests generally, and that of the priests and landlords of the county of Carlow in particular. Mr. Wallace of Greenock, who adds to his active solicitude concerning the local affairs of his own country, and his super-active solicitude concerning the Post-office esta blishment, an ultra-active solicitude about the land lords of Carlow, wished that the House should ad dress the King to cause a Royal Commission to go into that county, and to inquire and report concerning the allegations in certain petitions presented to the House, relative to the interference of landlords and priests in election matters. He made a motion to this effect, introduced by a speech in which he said a good deal about " combinations of landlords against Catho lic tenantry "—an imagination wholly unsupported by any, even the smallest portion, of the huge volumes of evidence that had been for years past collected by Com mittees upon Irish affairs. That Protestant land lords have often been recommended to replace their Roman Catholic tenantry by Protestants, is true, and that some individuals here and there have to a certain de gree acted upon the recommendation, is we believe also true ; but of ant' combinations of landlords for this purpose, we have not heard, although not inattentive to the evidence which has been obtained in such abun dance. It is indeed not much the practice of Irish landlords to combine with any view to the improve ment or their estates. Their attention is generally di rected to their objects. Mr. Wallace quoted a num ber of cases of " turtling off" of Roman Catholic te nantry in the county of Carlow, which, if correct, wool(' nearly have cleared the county (it is a very small one) of that considerable part of its former popu lation. But the whole catalogue was merely a loose statement, unsupported by ally authentic documetlt, or other evidence which cautions men generally seek for, as confirmation of, important truths, and very pro bable were Mr. Wallace to itinire into these cases, he would find them all either wholly untrue, or grossly incorrect. Yet they were poured upon the House of Commons, as part and parcel of the state of things to he inquired into. One case, and one case alone, was referred to, as distinctly detailed in Colonel Bruen's evidence before the " Intimidation Commit tee." It Wa. this :—A man named Keogh held from Colonel Bruen seventeen acres of bog,,for which he had uut.paitt rent, yet he was a registered -ci lonel Broen's evidence says—" Keogh - came to me. 'I wished him to support me with his vote. He replied he would do so, hut that he dare not. I endeavoured to persuade him. He said he would rather lie at my mercy than any one else's, but could not comply, and so I took the seventeen acres of bog hack again." Now we ask any man , whom party spirit has not abso lutely driven out of his sober senses upon Irish affairs, whether there is any thing in this for which a land lord is to be blamed ? Would not any English land lord have done the same thing ? Would he let a man hold his land without paying hint any rent for it, in or der that by so holding it he (the tenant) might be enabled to vote against him ? Every man's common sense must tell him that such a thing in England would not be allowed. Col. Brut took blek the land and gave it to another, who paid him 40.5. a year for it ; and he would have acted the part of a ninny if he had not done so. Yet Mr. Wallace and Mr. t Varburton call this intimidation, and the latter of these gentlemen prays the House to observe that Colonel Bruen had taken the land from his tenant in consequence of the vote he had given. It is not so. IL took the land because the rent was not . paid. The rent was his right—the vote was a favour • that favour the tenant refused, and the landlord went upon his right. Is ihere any tyranny in this ? The privilege to vote is in a right of property—the property was Colonel Bruen's, (for the tenant had given him no equivalent :for 0, —is he then to allow hi s property t o b e use d for the purpose of giving political power to those -,,Those politics he believes to be ruinous? The sup po silage i s, meinstrons, and yet, because he would not do OIL' , t' ,5 7 4 9 be accused, by person s p ro f ess i n g ordinary sanity , ofT having practised intimidati on a nd tyranny j_ S o lona fts the privilege of voting for Members oVthe-H orbpmmons is by law dependent upon the holding • of c ertaityproperty,it is plainly reasonable t hat the owners .9f large property should with discretion, THE SUN, LONDON; THURSDAY, MAY 19, i 36. .)servvce of the Lord's Day. We are quite as anxious s the Iworthy Baronet that that day should be se* T art for :he purposes which it was intended to pro note, and that nothing should interrupt its just ob iervance, but, in the language of the Church to whic h ie belongs, ,4 works of necessity and mercy ;" but, at he same time, we are too well aware of the nature and lisposition of the human mind to dreanf fur a moment .hat its propensities can be changed by an Act of Parliam?nt. Were his Bill to pass to-morrow, the .world would not be a whit tors religious. We ques ion greatly, indeed, whether the evils complained of would not be augmented.—Morning Advertiser. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF. COMMONS, MAY 18. Ihe SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. PERLETHORPE CH APELRY. Mr. E. DENNISON brought up the Report of the Committee on the ahove Bill. CARLISLE DOCKS BILL. Tnis Bill was reed a third tim?, on the motion of Mr. HOWARD. Lord COLE brought up the Report of the Committee on the Ulster Canal Bill. On the motion of Mr. LOWTHER, the York and North Midland Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr: TOWNLEY moved the third reading of the Over Inclosure Bill. Dr. BOWKING felt bound to oppose the passing of this Bill. There was scarcely five acres of waste land in the whole parish, which could,be ollittle-int:irtance to the five great proprieters who were the promoters of the Bill ; though, to the poor, it was of incalculable advantage, and, if taken away, many of them would be obliged to go to the workhouse. He hoped the poor would find defenders in that House—they could not do so, so easily a.; the rich could employ counsel—therefore he hoped the Bill would not pass. The matter here suddenly dropped. Whether the Bi was read v or not it was impossible to say. SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY.- Mr. BOWES moved that the South Durham Railway Committee have time to report up to the 17th June. Mr. PEASE moved that they might have leave to sit during the holidays. Lbrd STANLEY opposed the motion, but was not heard in the gallery. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that to comply with this motion would be tantamount to a repeal of part of the re• gu!ation upon Railways.—( Hear.) The motion was, that the South Durham Committee have an extension of time to make their report. It appeared to him that no audible reason had been given—(A laugh)—the conversation that was carried on across the table respecting the motion, was wholly inaudible. There bad been a good deal of compa ratively silent conversation, but if there were any g rounds for the motion it was desirable that the House should hear them. Unless the motion was a matter of course, the House ought to hear the facts and the reasons assigned for the motion. There was a recognised regulation of the House, that no report should be received upon a Railroad Com mittee after the 6th June, and this motion being to extend the period to the 17th, some reason should be given for it. The motion with which they had complied in the Brighton case was not an analogous case to the present, inasmuch as in the Brighton Committee there were two conflicting lines, and two contemplated lines, referred to them. There were four lines to be adjudicated upon, and consequently they con sumed more of time then came within the latitude prescribed, and therefore that case justified the deviation from a whole some rule. Unless they were prepared to abrogate alto gether the regulations to which they had come, unless good reasons were stated, they could not comply with this motion. The SPEAKER said that this had been the second application since the resolution of the House, and he (lid not know that it was correct ; but he would suggest that, as there was a similar application to be made, unless the House would proceed to say that these resolutions were altogether useless, he would suggest to the House, whe ther, in point of fact, there would not be some convenience in this mode of proceeding, viz.—when a Committee was desirous of making an application of this nature, they should present a special report, stating the grounds of the applica tion, the number of days they had sat, of the witnesses exa mined, and whether the report had been agreed to by the whole of the Committee, or if not, by what proportion of it ; and on that Report being printed with the votes, the House would be able to come to a fair and reasonable de cision.—( Hear, hear.) Sir M. W. RIDLEY concurred in all that had fallen from the Speaker, but trusted that under the very pecu liar circumstances in which the Committee were placed, the House would grant them a further extension of time. After a few observations from Lord STANLEY and Sir J. GRAHAM, Mr. BOWES gave notice that he should renew his ap plication on Tuesday week. DUNDEE AND NEWTYLE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS, the Dundee and Ncwtyle Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. GLASGOW AND FORFAR RAILWAY. Mr. HOPE JOHNSTON brought up the Report o the Committee on the Glasgow and Forfar Railway Bill. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY. On the motion of Lord STANLEY, the Manchester anti Leeds Railway Bill was read a third time, and passed, NE - WRY NAVIGATION. On the motion of Mr. BRADY, the Newry Navigation Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. PENDARVES brought up . the Report on the Panett Navigation. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Trustee to the Earl of Strathmore, against the Tees Water Works Bill. NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. The third reading of the North of England Railway B having been moved, - Mr. HUTT felt that his duty compelled him to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. This was stated to belt part of a great railway to connect the two capitals of Great Britain ; but it went only 30 miles, leaving 100 milei undone on the one side, and 200 on the other. Mr. T. ATT WOOD seconded the motion. Mr. PEASE said that of all the speeches he had ever heard since he come into the House, the one he had just heard astonished him the most. He would only ask the Hon. Member whether he had ever heard or read the evi dence that had been given before the Committee ? Mr. HUTT could assure his Hon. Friend that he was not in the habit of stating what was incorrect. He had been several times in the Committee-room, and had heard quite sufficient from the evidence of several persons there sufficiently to verify the fact he had related. Mr. PE ASE did not recollect seeinc , the Hon. Member more than three or four times in the Committee-room, and that only for ten minutes together. There had been several engineers examined, and they had all united that it was one of the best lines that could have been suggested. The design and estimates were approved of. There had been no division in the Committee on the subject ; and now, when everything had been approved of by the Com nnttee, a new lino was suggested. Mr. A. TREVOR had never in his life heard of any measure, the necessity and olosious justice of which was more clearly proved. Ile could not believe that there would be any serious opposition to a measure which was so loudly called for by the county of Durham. Mr. H. HUGHES protested against the measure, and would most cordially unite in opposing it. Mr. BOWES would merely state, that it was his inten tion to vote for the third reading, but he did so entirely in deference to the opinions of his constituents. After a few words from Messrs. Hume, H. Hughes, Potter, and another Hon. Member, whose name we could not learn, the House divided, when there appeared— For the original motion 6l Against it Majority On our return to the galllery we found Mr. Goulburn addressing the House, and moving an• amendment, as we understood, on the amendment already before the House, that the Bill be read a third time the first day after the holidays. Mr. 11. Huones and Mr. lit str protested against the unusual and unprecedented course pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and charge him with endeavouring to wrest the rights of the poor from them after their possession had been affirmed by the votes of the Huse. Mr. MILES and an Hon. Member (Mr. Bonham, as we understood) supported the amendment of the R;ght Hon. Gentleman. After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Warburton. and Mr. Pryme, the House divided, when there appeared- For the original motion B3 For the amendment . B4 Majority ENGLISH TITHE BILL -4 Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that, as it was most impor tant to bring on the English Tithe Bill so. as to have the additional clauses and amendments made in the measure considered (luring the recess, Hon. Members who had the charge of Orders of the Day would give way, so as to suf fer it to go into Committee. Sir A. AGNEW had an Order ou the paper, the 2nd reading of the Sabbath Bill, which it was imperative on him to bring on. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Baronet would have an opportunity of bringing it on after the Tithe Bill should have been disposed of. Sir A. AGNEW was not at liberty to give way. Lord J. RUSSELL consented to let the Order take precedence. Mr. WALTER gave notice of clauses to be moved by him on the Tithes Bill, empowering the Commissioners to raise the stipend of clergymen in parishes where it was in sufficient, but not to exceed 3001. a year. Mr. MACLEAN wished to know if the Government had received any account of the late action in which the Pluenir and the Salamander were engaged with the forces of Don Carlos on the north coast of Spain ; whether there had been any loss of men, killed or wounded ; and whether, if such were the case, the Government meant to publish a list of them ?—(The Hon. Member was imperfectly heard in the gallery.) Mr CHARLES WOOD was understood to say that no intelligence of any men on board these ships being moderation and justice, exercise influence - in such elec tions. It cannot be otherwise in a wholes'ome state of things. But the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. who have no property, come forward to grasp by open violence the influence which naturally and lawfully is the landlords. They prevent the tenants from paying rent, and apply whet would have paid the landlord to the expense of political opposition to him. Then, when be takes his legal - remedy against those •;:lmo use his land without peeing him for it, the priests get up a public outcry, anti a Pirliameutary war against him as a political oppressor. Thee it is that they seek at ince to drain the private purses, and to sap the public nfluence of the Protestant landlords ; and some Eng ish gentlemen ate still blind enough to support them n their machinations. It is only necessary to add :hat, though the motion of Mr— Wallace for inquiry, vas seconded and supported by those who are accused, :he Government opposed the motion, and it was lost, —Morning Herald. We do not recollect to have beard or read of an; Minister of the Brit.isi Crown placing himself, am the Government of which he formed an important part in a position so repugnant to the principles of the Bri tish Constitution, to the duty of a loyal subject, or to the dictates even of common sense, as that which the Marquis of Lansdowne assumed last night in moving in the House of Lords the third reading of the amended Irish Corporations Bill. We arc not on the present occasion about to discuss the merits of the measure, either in its original, or its amended form. It was at first a good measure for those who think that too much power cannot be given to the Popish Priests and theirlay officer, Mr. O'Connell. It is now a tolerable Bill in the estimation of those who think that the Popish Priesthood of Ireland and their lay officer, Mr. O'Connell, have already power enough. This is a brief, but a sufficiently accurate and complete epitome of the mea sure of Irish Corporation Reform as it was passed by the Commons, and - as it has been altered by the Lords, in the exercise of those equal powers, and in the discharge of those equal duties, which appertain respectively to the two branches of the Constitutional Legislature. But the view which the Noble Presi dent of the COuncii—acting, in the absence of the Prime Minister, as the representative of the whole Administration--takes of the measure, is not that of the House of Lords, nor is it that of time House of Commons. It is a view quite new and pe culiar. It is a view which, we venture to say, could not by possibility have been taken of such a measure by any other Administration than the present ; or by a ny ,Adtninistration, if we may vary our phrase with out ehat;zing our meaning, which understood or appre ciated the British Constitution as a political system, constructed for any higher purpose than that of keep ing in place men destitute of principle, and of cement ing a political alliance between confederates destitute of mutual confidence, affection, or respect. The Pre sident of the King's Council and the Cabinet of w hi c h he was in this instance the organ shall be judge d, not by the representations of their political opponents, but by the words of the Noble Marquis himself. This Minister, in moving the third reading of the Irish Corporation Bill, a measure admitted on all hands to be of extreme importance, gave an explanation of his own motives and feelings which, if it have no other merit, has that at least of unquestionable originality. The Noble Marquis, according to his Own statement, moved the House of Lords to read for the third time, and to pass, this Bill, not because he thought it a good Bill, but because be thought it a bad one. He made these motions, by his own confes sion, not for the purpose of legislation, but of strife. He made them, not to promote the King's service or to forward the business of Parliament, but to obstruct and embarrass both. He made them, if he is himself to be believed, not. to produce an harmonious action of the two branches of the Legislature for the advantage of the community, but to give to the House of Com mons a good opportunity, in point of form, of stig matizing and traducing the House of Lords. He made them, in a word, not in the spirit of a Legislator or a Statesman, but of an agitator and a demagogue ; not as a President of the Council or as a Peer of the realm, but as a mean, abject, slavish, and worthless - minion of O'Connell. The propoSitions we have now stated are among the express declarations contained in the speech of the Marquis of Lansdowne, or among the unavoidable inferences which it supplies. But we cannot bring ourselves to take the Noble Mar quis at his word. We must suspect that he has mis represented his own character and objects, and those of the Administration of which he is a Member. The idea is inconceivable that a Minister of the Crown, and a Member of the House of Lords, should have made a motion merely with the intention, however explicitly announced, of affording to time other House of Parliament an opportunity of reproaching and an nulling what, in consequence of this motion , the House of Lords had done. To do justice to the Marquis of Lans downe, we must seek the objects of his motion, with out considering the speech by which he introduced it. We said from the first, that the Lords' amendments of the Irish Corporation Bill were not unacceptable to Ministers, and that the latter would adopt them, if they dared. And all that we now think it safe to con clude from the strange conduct of the NOble President of the Council is, that Ministers have not yet quite determined whether they dare adopt them or not. The Bill is kept in existence, however it may have been abused, by the Government which might have permit ted it to expire on the table of the House of Lords. It is still the Government Bill. It has passed the House of Lords on the motion of an important Mem ber of the Government. It will have been sent back to the House of Commons by the Government. And, when there, its fate will entirely depend on the course which the members of Government in that House may be instructed to pursue towards it. But, the speech of the Marquis of Lansdowne, in opposi tion to his own motion, may be thought to leave the Government and its partisans at liberty to deter mine what course they snail pursue with respect to the measure in the House of Commons. They ace quire by means of this speech the time to endeavour, if possible, to agree among themselves as to what is best to be done. They obtain the opportunity of putting out their feelers, to ascertain how far they dare venture to go in pursuance of the determinations of the House of Lords. They gain the chance, the invaluable chance, of lirinaire: round Mr. O'Connell. And if, in the end, it should be found expedient to act in the spirit of the Noble Marquis's speech and in -opposi tion to his motion—if in the end it should he resolved to renounce and repudiate the measure as amended—a Minister of the Crown will have earned die., praise of having suggested to the demagogues of Ireland and of the House of Commons the most promising topics of factious agitation tipen the subject. The maticeuvre is, itenust be allowed, a good one. It is all that Mr. O'Connell ,could wish. It leaves in his hands time ab solute power of deciding how Ministers may deal with the measure in its future stages, and contributes, so far as the present Administration can contribute to anything, to his resources of vituperation and invective against the House of Lords, in time event of the mea sure they have amended being finally pronounced un acceptable.—Morning Post. We need scarcely point the attention of ,our readers to the proceedings of the House of Lords last night, upon the Irish Municipal Bill. Their result, is in perfect keeping with their conduct in every instance since time passing of the Reform Bill, where a liberal measure was concerned ; and our readers in conse quence will not he surprised when we inform them that the Municipal Bill introduced by his Majesty's Mi nisters has found a grave in their Lordships' House, and that the Lyndhurst—in other words the destruc tive—Bill has been read a third time, and been passed to the House of Commons for its adoption: Quern dots vat perdere, prints dementat, was never more applica ble to any individual, or any body of men than the Ho - use of Lords. They have been warned again and aeain of the results which must necessarily spring from their anti-national policy—but the more they have been warned, the more intent have they been upon their own destruction. They have now put the 'seal to their anti-national c haracter—they have now all . . but leaped into the aulph which has been long yawning to receive , them—and tile Commons of England cannot,. if - they would, save them from a well-merited fate !' • In the Commons the only remarkable occurrence was the throwing out, by a majority of 75 to 43, of the incom prehensible Bill of Sir Andrew Agnew for the better PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) moND:ty, :%1 Air 16. TKINITY HARBOUR AND NORTH LEITH DOCKS BILL. - Order for further consideration of Report read ; [Prints having .teen delivered d Motion made and Question , propo;ed,-6, That ;he Amendments be now - read a second time :"—Amendment woposetl, to leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the w:.rds, " the Report be taken into further consideration upon this day fortnight " instead there af—Question put " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."—Tae House divided :-- .JORITY—AYES, 168. • Fax.ikerley, J. N. Manic, Hon. Fox Fector, John Millet Methuen, I'. Fergus, John Nlorpeth, Viscount I erguson, Sir Ronald Morrison, J. Ferguson, Robert Mosley, Sir O. Ferguson, (horge Mu-grave, Sir R. Finch, G. Nagle, it It Fleetwood. IL North, F. Forster, C. O'Connell, .1. Gaskell, J. M. O'Connell, M. J. Gaskell, i 5. O'Connell, Morgan Gitlin', W. D. (PLoglilen, M. Gladstone, 'l' Oliplian. ' 1.. Grodburn, Serjcant Packs, C. W. Greisley, Sir 11. Paget, F. Grey Sir G. Parker ' J. Grwe, G. Parnell, Sir 11. Guest, J. Pattison, J. Pall. B. Pease, Joseph Handley, H. Pendarves, E. W. Hantinge, Sir 11. Philips, M. Hardy, J. Philips, G. R. Harland, W. C. Plonkett, R. Hastic, A. Pollen, Sir J. W. Hawkins, J. H. Potter, R. Hector, C. Poulter, J. S. He;miker, Lord Roche, D. Hindley, Char les Roebuck, J. A. HUblicuse, Sir J. C. Rundle, J. Hodges, T. L. Sandon, Lord ..ope, firm. J. Scholetield, J. Howard, P. H. Scott, Sir E. Hughes, H. Scropc, 0. P. Hume, Joseph Sharpe, Ge eral Humphery, J. St rutt, Edward Flurst, R. 11. Stuart, Lord James Jervis, J. Stuart, W. V. I Johnstone, A. Thompson, Colonel Kearsley, J. 1 - 1 Thorneley, Thomas Knightley, Sir C. 'Peke, William Labouehere 11. Turner, W. Lee, John I.ee Vescy, Hon. T. Lefroy, A. Villiers, Charles P. Lennox, Lord G. Vivian, J. H. Lennox, Lord A. Wakley, Thomas Lincoln, Earl of Walker, R. Loch, James Wallace, R. Lowther, Colonel Wagon, Rigby Lushington 1)r. Wigney, I. N. Mackenzie, A. S. Wilbraham, G. Mackinnon, W. A. Williams, W. A. Maclean, I). Wrottesley. Sir J M•Leod, M. Young, J APTaggart, J. Marjorihanks, S. Maryland, H MA Acite,on, Viscount Agnew, Sir A. Ainsworth, Peter Meager, Richard A ttwood, 'l'. B .gs aw John fi.seph Billie, H. D. Baldwin, Dr. Balfour, Bannerman, A. Barclay, David Barlng, F. T. Baring, B iroard, E. G. Barron, H. W. Barry, G. S. Beeke t, Sir J. Bell, M. Bellew, It. M. Bish, T. filAckburne, J. 1. W. Bonham, F. R. Bowring, Dr. Brady, 1). C. Bridgman, Hewitt Brocklehurst, J. li-otherton, .1. Brownrigg, J. S. Browne, R. D. Bruc Lord E. Bruce, C. L. C. liyng, George Calcraft, J. H. Canning, Sir S. Cavendish, G. H. Chalmers, P. Ch.plin, 'r, Chapman, A. Chisholm, A. W. Clements, Lord Codrington, Sir E. Colborne, Ridley Crawford, W. S. Crawford, W. D'Albiac, Sir C. Darlington, Earl of Denison, J. E. Dirial, E. Dunbar, George Duncombe, Dundas, J. D. Ebrington, Viscount Elley, Sir J. Ettiw, R'. Hon. E. Ewart, W, TF.I.LERS. Hay, Sir A. E. Stanley, E. J. Bethell, H. Bradshaw, J. Buller, Sir J. B. Y, Esicourt. T. Forbes, W. Jackson, J. D. .NORITY—NOES, Murray, J A. 1 Nichol', J. Pringle, A. Pryme, G. Rae, z•ir William Rug, C. Sheppard, T. Trevor, Hon. A. Wemyss, Captain TELLER 4. Clerk, Sir G. Campbell, Sir J. ABERDEEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL. Order for further consideration of Report read :—Motion made, and Question put—" That the Bill be re-committed."—The House divided : .JORIT Y.—AYES, Fitzgibbon, Hon. It. Fitzroy, Lord C. Folkes, Sir W. Gaskell, I). Grattan, J. Grey, Sir G. 1 Grey, Colonel Grote, Guest, J. J. Hall, B. Harland, W. Hastie, A. Hector, C. J. Hindley, C. Hodges, T. L. Howard, E. Flume, Joseph Hutt, %V. Jervis, .1. Lefevre, C. S. Lennox, Lord G. Lennox, Lord A. Long, W. Lushington, Dr. Lushington, Charles Lynch, A. 11. Mackenzie, J. A. S. M'Leod, it. M.Taggart, John Marjorin.inks, S. Mar W. Marsland. H. Maule, Hon. Fox Morrison, J. Mostyn, L. Murray, J. A. Nagle, Sir It. North, F. O'Brien, C. O'Brien, W. S. O'Connell, J. O'COnnell, M. J. O'Connell, Morgan O'Ferrall, 11. M. O'Log:len, Sageant r Mph ant, Oswald, J. Paget, F. Palmer, General Parker, 3. Parnell, Sir H. Parrott, J. rattison, James Acheson, Viscount Aglionhy, H. A. Ainsworth, Peter Attwood, T. Bagshaw, John Baring, F. T. Barnard, E. G. Barron, H. W. Bellew, It. 11. Bowes, T. Biddulph, R. M. Bish, T. Blackburne, J. Blamire, W. Blunt, Sir C. Bownng, Dr. Brady, Denis C. Bridgeman, Hewitt Brocklehurst, J. Brotherton, J. Browne, It. D. 13ulwer, ti, L. Byng, tieorgp Byng, Hon. G. Campbell, Sir John Ciivendish, Hon. (i. Chalmorg, Patrick Chapman, X. L. Chichester, J. P. B. Clay, W. Clements, Lord Cr dringiAin, Sir E Colborne, N. W. K. Cowper, Hon. W. F. Cr.or !Ord, W. S. Crawford, W. Dalmcny, Lord Denison, W. J. Dillwyn, L. W. Dina, E. Donkin, Sir R. Duticombe, T, S. Duntlas, T. Dundas, J. D. Ebritigton, Lord Edwards, Colonel Ellice, E. Elphiastone, 11. Evan:, G. Ewart, W, Fergus, John Ferguson, Sir A. C. l'..irgoson, It. Fergu,a9n, It. C. .58. P.Nhell, Captain Pendarves, E. W. Philips, Mark Philips, G. R. Potter, It. Poulter, J. S. Power, James Pryme, G. Rice, 'l'. S. Robarts, A. W. Roc Roebuck, J. A. Rolle, Sir R. M. Rundle, John Ruthven, B. Scholetieil. J. Scott, Sir E. D. Scott, J. W. Sharpe, General Stanley, E. J. Steuart, It. Stewart, P. M. Strutt, E. Stuart, Lord James Stuart, Villiers TalfJurd, - T. Noon Taiiemi, 11. \V 4 Thompson, T. P. Thornely, 'l'. Trelawney, Sir W. Troubridge, Sir T. Tulk, C. A. Turner, W Villiers. C. P. Vivian, Major C. Vivian, J. IL Wak lc y, Thoin.ts Walker, R. Wallace, R. Ward, H. G ‘Vason, R. Cayt. Whalley, Sir S. White, S. W gney, I. N. Wit-bran:tin , G. W. IWood, C. Wrightson, W. R. Wrottesley, Sir J. Alsager, Richard AttwoOds M. Bailley, JoSepli Baillie, H. D. Barclay, C. Baring, F. Baring, H. B. 13arneby, John Bateson, Sir IL Becket, Sir John R Bonham, Francis R. Bradshaw, James lirownrigg, Bruce, C. L. C. Brnilenell, Lord Buller, Sir J. Y. Canning, kiir S. Cartwright, W. 11.. Chapman, A. Charlton, E. L. Chisholm, A. Clive, Visa. Con , lly, E. M. Corry, H. L. Darlington, Eall'of I)unkar, George Egerfon, W. T. Egerton, til Fran. Elit.y, Sir J. Estoia, T. G. B. Edcourt,T. S. 11. Ferguson, G. Follett, Hie W. W. Forbes, W. Forster, e. .NORITY—NOES, F E -mantic, Sir T. Oaskell, J. M. Gladstone, Goulburn, H Goulburn, Mr. Serjt. Greisley, Sir It. Halforr:, H. Hamilton, Lord C. Ilardinge, Sir 11. Hardy, J. Ilawes, B. H ,wgins, J. 11. Henniker, Lord Hill, Sir It. Hogg, J. W. tiny, J. 11. linglios, H. Ingham, Robert Inglis, Sir It. H. Jackson, Serjeort i6flllyis Earl Jones, Wilson Jones, T. Knightly y, Sir C. Leßoy, A. Lo:rny, Dr. I'. Lincoln, Earl of Lygon. Colonel Maclean, I). Nation, Lord 14anners, Lsrd C. M6ynoll, H. Mordaunt, Sir J. Mo.41(1, Sir 0. Packe, C. W. Parker, M. TELLERS Bannerman, A. Hay, Sir A. L. Patten, Wilson Sir 11 Peel, Colonel Pemberton, T. Pentuddock, J If. Perceval C. lonel l'raed, \V. M. Pringle, A. Rae, Sir W. Reid, Sir J. It. Richards, John Ridley, Sit M. %V. Rog:, C. Rushbrooke, Colonel llyle, J. Scarlett, Hon R. Sheppard, 'l' Sinclair, Sir G. Smith, J. A. Somerset, Lord G. Stanley, Lord Sturt, H. C. Thomas, Colonel Trevor, A. 110 ace Vivian, John Ennis Wall, 11. Walter, .1. Weyland, Major U. Williams, 'F. P. %Vortley, Ilon. J. S. Young, J. Young, Sir W. L. TELLERS, Clerk, S,r G. Gordon, Hon. %V. A hoax was practised on the London Missionary Society, which, but for an accidental circumstance, might have placed the meeting on Thursday last in an awkward pre dicament. Two letters were firwarded to Mr. Alers liankey, the banker, and formerly the treasurer to the society, the one containing a draft for 1001., purporting to be from Daniel O'Connell, in token of his liberal feelings, as a Roman Ca tholic, towards the Dissenters ~ and the other a draft for 501., purporting to bcirom Mr. Thomas Duneombe, M. P., for Finsbury. These letters were not opeaed until after the meet ing, otherwise the donation: might have been announced witlr those which are usually made at the anniversary of the Lon don Society. On presenting the drafts at the bankers, to whom they were addressed, the hoax was discoverel. THE NEW MOSES.—The command is, " Thou shalt do no work ;" yet the Jews had many exceptions to that universal rule. War on the Lord's Day was not forbidden. The priests worked without sin ; wood was gathered for the service of, the altar, and beasts were slaughtered fur the morn ina• and evertin,v, sacrifice. Our own prieat;.• work only on the Sabbath.r Children were circumcised on the Lord's Day. The Jews kindled no fire on the Sabbath ; but they lived in a hot country where fire could well be dispensed with. They did not labour on the Sabbath, either in seed time or harvest ; but their climate was regular and not varying like ours. Crops would sometimes he lost here and the people starved if they were not to harvest their wheat on a fine Sunday ; but in Palestine the Jews enjoyed the regularity of a tropical climate. The Jews were all agriculturists; they had no trade next to no division of labour, and they could all be idle on one and the same day ; to do which here, as Sir Andrew Agnew wishes, would wreck ou r shi p s, burn our furnaces, destroy our harvests, stop our communications, and speedily render the land uninhabitable. fa addition to all these diversities which make the law of Moses delivered in Palestine between three and four thousand years ag o to a communit y of she p herds an d agriculturists wholly inapp licable to our diversified soci e t y living in a varying climate, t here is plenty of proof th a t t h e Jews did not observe the Sabbath in idleness and prayer, but in festivity and gladness, an ob3ervanee which is maintained to the present day.—Brighton Guardian. LIBEL.—In giving a report of the trial of the action recently brought against us for l ibel, we s tated that the expenses of our difference wo uld be u p wards of 5001. We amountin g va3 o o p /7 of other have since that time . paid our bil l of costs, amounting to 530/., expenses,in addi t addition a ntdo vv which esltal w l have to t p o payaid u the pv c r o d ists of of p 0 sing the rule obtained by the plaintiff , f or setting aside the verdi c t i n our favour—the amount of which we have not yet ascertained. Of course the plaintiff, Clark, was liable to the payment of these costs ; but we never imagined that it would be possible to recover a farthing from him ; and it was therefore no disap pointment to us to learn, that when an execution was issued against him, neither he nor any property belonging to him could be found by the officer,—Manchester Guardian.—[We rejoice to perceive that a subscription having been set on foot, upwards of ,400/. has been raised to indemnify our Contempo rary. Many of the firms resident at Manchester have sub scribed 101. each.l gEI U. • killed. wounded, or made prisoners, had reached the Go- t and it would be just as absurd, in a Bill for their eminnota vernment. lion, to propose the insertion of a clause for the a bi . ,litn o of . Lord J. RUSSELL (who s ; ioke in a very low tone) tithe:, as it would he in a Bill for the regulation 01_u, ,0 1 ) 1 _ , , would take this opportunity to state that the inquiry un- rations to propose the abolition of Corporations. ast t dertaken by the Commissioners into the state of the poor cheers.) It was most important lhr the country trusted'll (as we understood) in. Berkshire WAS' complete, and the Re- Bill should pass during the present Session, and he . port would be presented to-morrow. He would, on Friday, that the Committee would not assent to the amendm . T il ' be prepared to move for a Committee to carry into effect proposed by the Hon. M em ber ib r Fi n sbury, Front I", their suggestions, and in the meantime would have the Re• attention which the Hon. M em b e r had p a id to the lair port printed, that the House might bl better prepared to the question,, he would recommend him to pursue 11: discuss the subject when it came regularly before them. studies, and he (the Attorney-General) would have gre, He also announced the com:detioa of the separate arrange- - pleasure in moving his call to the bar, and as be had some ments recommended by the Commissioners in relation to patronage he might appoint him his devil.....(ltattgliter.) the bishopric of Durham, to be effected in the new Bill, in Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the House wet , : 61 which provision was made, first for deter s mining the extent opinion that the personal tithe should be done away with , be of the diocese, and the duties, authority, and income of the had no objection to have a Bill brought in for that purposes Bishop ; second, declaring the duties, privileges, and in. Mr. T. Di NCOMBB felt himself called on to take tlitt come of the Dean and Chapter. sense of the Hotto upon the subject. The Bill was then read a first time. Lord J, itESSIILL was tva4 to bring in a Bill nn thP The Irish Constabulary Bill amendments, Providing for subject, and \VAS Sure tb Qnnittussioners would direct their the increase of powe r t o th e L o rd Lie u t e na n t iii @ertain attention subject of fisheries, with a view to such a cases, and additional remuneration tit payitiasterS of that propose. force, was brought up by Lord Morpeth, mid read it first Tile House then divided, when there appeared— and second time. For the Amendment LORD'S nAY BILL. Against it 96 Sir ANDREW AGNEW rose to move the second MAjority reading of the Lord's Day Bill, and a number of petitions Clauses 77 to el were then agreed to. in favour of it were laid on th e t a bl e . Il e was well aware Mr. GALLY KNIGHT then moved '.JII) following re that there was great reluctance to listen to his observations solution—" Provided always, and be it . An e, te d, that in case i n that House ; hut he was happy to think that no similar notice in writing, under the hands of an y landowners or re l u ctance prevailed out of it, to do justice to this important tithe-owners, whose' interest in the l an d s or ti t h es of the topic. A considerable popular error had been promulgated parish shall not be less than ono-h a lf the lands subject to with respect to the object of his Bill, which had been re- tithes, one-half of the great tithes, or one half of the smal l presen ted as framed by him to coerce the poor and not the tithes of din parish shall be g i ven t o th e C om missioner rich.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, they took the trouble or Assistant Commissioner, acting in that behalf,. to l oo k into its provisions, and inquire into its probable ef- within one calendar otonth n ex t a f ter th e n otice of the fects, they would learn that such was not likely to be the intention t o make an award shall have been given as afore results attending its operation. The clauses had, on the said, • that the average v a l ue t o be as certaine o, con t rar y, been framed. with special attention to the pro- as last atbresaid, will not f a i r ly re p resen t the sram tection they would afford to the labourer, and to save which ought to be taken, for calculating the per him from compulsory toil on the Sabbath.—(4onical =nem commutation of the tithes of th e sa id p ar ish ; or if cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman opposite who Indulged in it shall appear to any assistant-commissioner by whim the such pleasantry at his mode of effecting this o bj ec t ( w hi c h average value of the tithes shall be estimt,ted in any parish . was on all hands allowed to be so desirable; might h a v e some that the composition hitherto agreed to he taken for the more applicable scheme in his pocket, but he (Sir Andrew tithes of the said parish is in any respect fraudulent or un- Agnew) could not devise a better. The technical manner just, or that by reason of any charges imposed by .Parlia in which the Bill was brought up appeared also to alarm ment on any lands for drainage or embankment, or by r eason several Hon. Members, but this was the result of extensive of Any other penliar circumstances relating to the said pa consideration, to meet a variety of pressing consideratiera. Ash, consi d erations exist which have not been duly attended H e re f e rred to the petitions which crowded tho table ; sonic to, in any of which cases he shall make a report, it sbgt from the fish-market-men and poulterers, from the inha- he lawful for the commissicners to direct some assistant bitants of Chelsea, the waggoners of the great western Commissioner to hear all the parties interested in the said road, and the boatmen on the canals, as the be proof tithes, on a day or days to be appointed by the •eommis be could offer of the interest the industrious classes took sioners or assistant commissioner for that purrose, and in forwarding the object of the Lord's Day Bill. The thereupon to make such order concern i ng the, sum to he latter class declared that they were altogether deprived taken for calculating a permanent commutae.on of the s aid of any opportunity o f mora l and religious instruction. tithes as to them shall seem equitable." Last year petitions had come from some hundreds of them Lord J. RUSSELL objected to its introduction ; and, in favour of it. t after a short conversation, the clause was withdrawn, w ith Mr. PLUMPTRE said that every class of the commu- a promise from Mr. G. Knight again to bring it forward. nity had expressed their wish that the House would afford In answer to a question, them protection on the Lord's Day, and enable them to Lord J. RUSSELL thought the Bill might be re-corn rest from their fatiguing labours. But this was the lowest mitted about ten days after the holidays. g r o und on which the principle of the Bill could be defended. The House then resumed, and the Report was ore h ered In legislating for the West India slaves they preserved for to be brought up on Friday. their use part of Saturday and the whole of Sunday,— CONSTABULARY BILL (IRELAND) (Hear.) There wore other considerations necessary to be On the question that the House agree to the - Lords' acted on than those involved in the authority of the fourth amendments to the Constabulary Bill (Ireland), some eon commandment. Other commandments had additional in- Yersation arose, when— fluence imparted to them by the force of human laws. Le- Lord COLE moved that the word " freemason "be gislators did not suffer the murderer to escape unpunished. omitted, which was negatived without a division. H e then His Hon. Friend would bring the subject again and again moved that the w or d s " f r i en dl y b rothers " b e i nserte d ; before the House, till he obtained protection for th e pe o pl e when the House divided, and there appeared-- on the Lord's Day. For the amendment Mr. G: H. WARD considered this a most objectionable Against it and inconsistent measure. If the public ought to lac bound by the letter of the 4th Commandment, then the Bill was a bad Bill, and the spirit in which it was 11.amed was not an honest one ; for there was no such exception in that Com mandment as was contained in the 26th clause of the Bill, which permitted servants to work. It was doubtless de sirable that Sunday should be a day of rest and recreation, a day of cessation from toil and trouble, to the working classes. But how did the Hon. Baronet propose to pro vide for their relaxation ? He took every precaution to deprive them of all means of locomotion. He shut them up in narrow streets, from which no omnibus or wherry dare attempt to convey them to the fresh air of the coun try. - They had no means of escape by land or by water from the pains and penalties of the Bill.--0 - lear.) It was not a Bill to coerce the rich—it was a Bill that told with tenfold hardship on the poor, It deprived them of the right of purchase on Sundays, though half the industrious classes habitually bought their week's provision no that day. if shut out of the city markets they sought to procure refresh ments in the country, the penalties of the Bill again stared the dealers in the face, and left the hungry customers no remedy. The Hon. Baronet had proposed what was de cidedly impracticable. How was it possible to prevent the sailing of ships on Sunday, or to enter into all various de tails contained in the Hon. Baronet's Bill? He should move that the Bill be read that day six months. Captain PECHELL said it was quite impossible to modify this Bill so as to make it a tolerable one. From most of the fishing ports the fishing boats sailed on Sun day afternoon, the fishermen coming in on the Saturday, to enable them to perform their religious duties. The Hon. Baronet's Bill would put a stop to the whole of the fisheries of this country. Colonel THOMPSON denied that time was any au thority in the Christian Scriptures for the imposition of a Jewish Sabbath. Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the Bill. Mr. SHAW would vote for the second reading, because though he objected to many of the clauses of the Bill, some legislation on the subject was required. • Lord A. LENNOX would vote for the second reading on the same grounds. Mr. PRY ME was favourable to some legislation on the subject, but would not support such a Bill as this. Major C. BRUCE deprecated some of the clauses of the Bill, but thought it ought to go into Committee. Mr. H. HUGHES thought that the Bill ought to be read a second time. Sir S. CANNING was favourable to the principle of the Bill, but could not g o the length of it s p rov i s i ons . Lord J. RUSSELL had voted for the introduction of the Bill, and would not therefore vote against the second reading if he. thought it could be amended in Committee ; but the whole Bill, from beginning to end, was so objec tionable that hardly a clause could be expected to he adopted, and it was therefore useless to read it a second time. He must add that such indis cree t a tt emp t s were calculated to prejudice, by casting a ridicule upon, the ob ject which the Hon. Baronet had himself in view. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE defended the Bill. Mr. C. BARCLAY could not vote for the second read ing of a 13111, to almost every clause of which almost every Member had objected. Mr. HARDY thought the Bill ought to be read a se cond time. Sir A. AGNEW replied. The whole discussion was interrupted by repeated cries of " Question, question," " Divide, divide." The House then divided, when there appeared-- '` For the 13111 43 For the Amendment Majority for the Amendment —32 TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. The House went into Committee on the Tithe Com mutation Bill. Clauses 50 to 70 inclusive were agreed to. Clauses 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75 were, after some discus. sion on them, likewise agreed to. On clause 76 being proposed, Mr. DUNCOMBE moved as an amendment to leave out the following words, " or the tithes of fish or of fishing," or to " the tithes of mills," or any personal tithe, or to any mixed tithes not arising upon land," and to add these words by way of proviso at the end of each section, " that from and after the passing of this Act all tithes of fish or of fishing, or of personal tithes, shall cease and determine." The Hon. Member pro ceeded to say, that he considered it to be a great hardship to exact tithes from these poor fishermen who risked their lives to earn a precarious subsistence. There was ano ther description of tithe which he was sure that every Member of the House would concur with him in wishing to see done away with, lie meant the tithe on labourers. In proof of the • hardship of this case the Hon. Member read from Cobbett's " Legacy to the Parsons" the case of Dods worth and other labourers who were sent to gaol by a magistrate, who was also a parson, for default in the pay ment of tithe. The Hon. Member read some quotations from some legal authorities, for the purpose of showing that personal tithes differed esrentially in their nature from other tithes, and ought to be done away with. The amendment having been put, ' Lord J. RUSSELL would be glad to see personal tithes abolished, for he considered them a great hardship on those classes particularly which had been alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. He, however, thought that this abolition ought not to be effected by a clause in a Bill in this way. It would be a fit subject for the Commissioners appointed under this Bill to inquire into the nature and extent of these personal tithes, with a view to compensating those Clergy men whose rights would be interfered wi th in their aboli tion. A great friend of the Church, the Bishop of Exeter, was anxious for the abolition of this description of tithes. In many instances this right had been given up by the Clergy, but in several p l ace s it was still enforced. he did not think that the amendment _prop s° , u b y , the Hon. Gentleman was the proper way to put an end to the grievance complained of. After a short conversation. The ATTORNEYs(ir 'TERAL said that the Bill before the Hopp for the commutation of tithes ; Majority against it —IB The other Orders of the Day were then disposed o f, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past One o'Cler,',. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 1 8. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack, five minutes after 5 o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Lord STANLEY, Mr. P. ROWARD, Mr. BAINES, and several other Honourable Members brought uP from the Commons the following amongst other Bills—the, Carlisle Docks' Bill, the York and North Midland Railway Bill, the Leeds and Manchester Railway Bill, which were severally read a first time. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from an. in dividual, expressing his doubts as to the orthodoxy of the Church Liturgy, and praying the House to adopt some means (so we understood) to solve the difficulties under which he laboured. Lord HOLLAND objected to the reception of the pe tition, as being irregular and ludicrous. Petition withdrawn. Several petitions were presented from Methodists, in fa vour of a more rigorous observance of the Sabbath. Lord CLARE gave notice that he would, on the 31st inst. present a petition from the East India Merchlnts, praying for an equalization of Sugar Duties, and be would then ask the Government what were their views on the subject. Lord ROSSLYN moved (as we understood) for a re turn of th e a pp ea l s f rom E ng l an d, I re l an d, an d Scotland, since 1833. DURHAM ECCLESIASTICAL BILL. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice teat when this Bill was brought on, on the 3;st instant, aeJord ing to the motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne, he should move on the second reading that the surplus revenues be appropriated within the diocese to the enlargement of small livings and the support of the University. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. In answer to a question from the Duke of RICH MOND, whether the Government had received dispatches. from our Ambassador in Spain, respecting the late attack at St. Sebastian, The Earl of MINTO said that Government had re ceived only one dispatch, dated the sth instant, respecting the battle alluded to, in which his Majesty's naval force took a part. The Duke of RICHMOND moved for a copy of this dispatch. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL. The Order of the Day for the third reading of the Mil' nicipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill having been read, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose and spoke to the, following effect :—My Lords, I rise to move the third reading of the altered Bill, which now stands entitled -- • A Bill for the Regulation of Munitipal Affairs in Ire' land, and for the Abolition of M•anicipal C or poration s therein." In rising to move this thi r d rea di ng , it certain 1 1 will be necessary for me to occupy but a very short portion of .your Lordships' attention, and I shall be glad if r il Y„ comparative brevity upon this oc cas i on s h a ll in so me degre e mitigate the inconvenieuce to which I am sensible I In a "„ have put some of your Lordships, by requiring as a fay": your attendance here on this usually vacant evening. Th a : " the subject to which I am about to direct attention one of paramount importance I am but too well aware ; hut, nevertheless, it certainly would be unpar; donable in me were I to occupy any considerable portion 01 your Lordships' time, when I feel it impossible for me tra as k you to give a third reading to this Bill on any other arg e " ment than the one I shall presently have to state. 'Cher, sition in which your Lordships stand in connection w ith this measure is simply this :—The Commons House of PI; liament having sent up to us a Bill, the object of w hich was the substitution for self-elected and irresponsible Ca' porations•in Ireland, Corporations that should be respon"' sible, and should be fairly elected by the people of thai country, it has seemed tit to the majority of your Lordshil i materially to alter that measure, and carefully to take o ' lt of the Bill all those portions of it which gave life and axis' tence to new Corporations, while you have been please (l t : retain all that extinguished life in all existing Corporat: on v whatever. The effect, therefore, of the Bill as it o ' 4 ._ stands adopted by your Lordships, is, that the corp or ri: system is for ever annihilated in Ireland, and that the ft' of the Bill--for the preliminary words are somewhat tu.. r necessary—should, instead of being " A Bill for the req.: lat:on of Municipal Affairs in Ireland, and for the ab°, .. r ‘ 7 tion of Municipal Corporations therein," be ‘, Bill ro abolishing the Corporations of Ireland, and making the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the time being sole cape; a rator thereof." My Lords, I have sometimes heard person out of this House less learned than your L or dships , ot• expressed some difficulty in knowing what was the tneauM of the legal term " Corporation sol e ."—(Hear.) MY L °r , - 1 -- - if this Bill shall p a s s i n t o a l aw , you will be o °l ,- to boast of having given to the world an opportunity witnessing in my Noble F r i en d near m e, the present Lieutenant of Ir e l an d, a kg specimen of that ler,al eo r a ratter, exercisin g , i n t h e vu l gar as well as legal s J nse ?t, Corporation sole, all the rights, privileges, and inimenluar, of the exi s tin g corporate bodies of that country. —(He to and laughter.) This, my Lords, it is needless for assure you, was far from the view of these who this Bill in the other House of Parliament —it was from the view of the majority of that other House of 1 ,7 1 , _ introduced this liament who adopted this Bill on its being so introduced. _u.. them. They contemplated no such tank:card-of COneei j at o N tici tion of powers in the hands of 'any single Tnarh" — <.„, ca . cheers.) They did, undw:,'„,t e dly, c ontemplate sure to which your ordships have been plen2ed ; ee l, —and the of that assent I undoubtedly value all that was, ... ent thes , cud, certainly, propose to extinguish proved to be corrupt and mischievous, and liable to become corrupt and mischievous, in the " by their Corporations of Ireland, but they did not pro Pdistitutions allthea_tistin measure to pass sentence upop the character and ino . of that country, and to record its people as u ttt:,'" i ` ch f o r pable of sustaining anything like those functions " centuries have been exercised, fairly exercised, b y their fel- ~-:,